In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A beam of white light goes through a prism to break up into a rainbow spectrum of coloured rays. The prism is also the mouthpiece of Darth Vader's helmet. A circular badge reads "The Dark Side That's No Moon".

Open Thread with Darth Side Of The Moon

tigtog

This Dark Side mashup graphic features for this week’s Open Thread. Please natter/chatter/vent/rant on anything* you like over this weekend and throughout the week.

A beam of white light goes through a prism to break up into a rainbow spectrum of coloured rays. The prism is also the mouthpiece of Darth Vader's helmet. A circular badge reads "The Dark Side That's No Moon".
The Dark Side That’s No Moon (found on pinterest, original author uncredited)

There are a gazillion variations on this mashup meme. I like how this one use’s the mouthpiece of Vader’s visor to make the prism.

So, what have you been up to? What would you rather be up to? What’s been awesome/awful?
Reading? Watching? Making? Meeting?
What has [insert awesome inspiration/fave fansquee/guilty pleasure/dastardly ne’er-do-well/threat to all civilised life on the planet du jour] been up to?

* Netiquette footnotes:
* There is no off-topic on the Weekly Open Thread, but consider whether your comment would be on-topic on any recent thread and thus better belongs there.
* If your comment touches on topics known to generally result in thread-jacking, you will be expected to take the discussion to #spillover instead of overshadowing the social/circuit-breaking aspects of this thread.

33 thoughts on Open Thread with Darth Side Of The Moon

  1. Shit. It sounds like the recent UVA gang-rape allegations were false. Which means, of course, that people who were actually raped will have to deal with this as the latest MRA talking point for the next fucking decade.

    Fuck the reporter who didn’t fucking bother to fact checl, fuck Rolling Stone, fuck the woman who made up the story, fuck everything.

    1. You don’t know that she made up the story or wasn’t a rape victim. Yes, it seems there are factual discrepancies — among other things, she seems to have gotten the date and the name of the fraternity wrong — but that doesn’t mean everything was made up.

      1. Seconding Donna on this. From what I’ve read she was told by somebody in her rape support group on campus that this particular frat house (as they were walking near it) was the actual house in which her rape had to have happened, and she internalised that person’s conclusion as part of her narrative. It now appears that this particular frat house has evidence that contradicts the claim, but that does not mean that she wasn’t raped in a different house. It doesn’t mean that the person who told her this was lying either, simply that an unfounded yet strongly believed conclusion had been drawn.

        1. You’re both right. I’m having a hard time reading this one without losing it totally and should keep my mouth shut. Sorry. Fuck.

          1. No problem, it’s super-easy to swing too hard from one side of a story to the opposite. It seems to be the default state for most people regarding most issues. It takes a certain amount of deliberation to stand back and take time to reflect on various revelations as to events. I certainly still have to consciously step back and wait for more information before pronouncing any conclusions on many many things.

        2. It has emerged that ‘Jackie’ asked Rolling Stone to pull the story prior to publication, so this really is Rolling Stone’s screwup. If ‘Jackie’ knows she doesn’t have 100% of her facts straight (I don’t know if that’s why she asked to have the story pulled,) then it only makes sense that she’d want the story pulled, it doesn’t mean she hasn’t been raped.

          1. Sabrina Erdely obviously bears most of the blame for refusing to keep Jackie out of it once Jackie asked her not to include her story in the article, but where was the editorial oversight? In particular when they added the retraction and included phrasing about RS having “misplaced trust” in Jackie, or whatever exactly it was, because they’ve removed that sentence now.

            Jackie’s roommate from freshman year has come forward to say that she believes that Jackie definitely was sexually assaulted, and that Jackie never identified the fraternity involved to her. Sounds like Erdely was so keen to point the finger at a named frat house that she badgered Jackie until Jackie said something like “well my friend said it must have been that one” and then just refused to drop that identification as a central part of her story even when Jackie said “whoa, I don’t remember enough to be sure myself”.

            Utterly irresponsible and callous towards Jackie’s well-being and reputation. Shame on Erdely.

        4. There’s no evidence Jackie lied. The frat simply claimed they didn’t rape anyone, her friends said her rape wasn’t that bad, and so the magazine shrugged its shoulders and declared Jackie was untrustworthy. I just finished writing a post on what a complete and utter non sequitur this was (pending approval).

      2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?postshare=1651418249737325

        This is all getting very confusing. It appears on the one hand (from what I’m able to glean) that the specific person Jackie identified to her friends may not have even existed, and that the photo she said was his was plucked off the internet and belonged to someone she didn’t know, who doesn’t go to UVA. On the other hand, her friends still believe she was raped.

  2. [if this goes through, previous attempt can stay in moderation]

    The December Project has helped a lot of people the last few years, and it’s that time again. From Helen Boyd’s engender blog:

    http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2014/12/05/the-december-project-2014/

    The December Project 2014
    Posted by helenboyd – December 5, 2014

    Hello there! For the fourth year in a row, we are doing THE DECEMBER PROJECT. The plan is simple. If you are trans– or if you love someone who is trans– and you need a friendly voice, email us and we will call you on the phone. . . . We cannot undo all the hurt in the world. But what we can do is CALL YOU ON THE PHONE and remind you that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. You don’t have to be in crisis to take advantage of this project. All you have to do is want a friendly voice.

    The project this year will be run by five people – four to make calls, and one to organize the emails. Dylan Scholinski, director of Sent(a)mental Studios; Helen Boyd, Professor at Lawrence University; Allyson Robinson, pastor-teacher, and Brynn Tannehill, journalist and educator. We are two trans women, a trans man, and a spouse of a trans woman. Between the four of us, we have heard many different kinds of trans narratives. If we can help you, we would be glad to do so. Our fifth person, who will receive your emails and get the right ones to us callers, is Donna Levinsohn, a lawyer and old, trusted friend of Helen’s who has been involved in trans activism for years.

    How do you get us to call you? By emailing decemberproj@gmail.com. If (1) you have a particular preference to talk to one or the other of us, let us know– although I can’t guarantee that you’ll always hear from the person you request. Also (2) please tell us the time of day and the date you’d be free for a call; you might want to give us a couple of options. And of course, (3) tell us your phone number. WE WILL KEEP YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL.

    [Much more at link, including the important points that “no one in the December Project gets a dime out of it,” and that “if you are in serious crisis, please bypass us and go directly to the national suicide prevention lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. WE ARE NOT TRAINED AS THERAPISTS or as counsellors for individuals in crisis. If you need something more serious than a “friendly voice,’ please call the lifeline.”]

    1. I should give credit where it’s due, and add that the December Project was originally begun by Jennifer Finney Boylan in 2011. She is unable to participate this year, and some lawyer named Donna is standing in for her (solely to administer the Project, not to make actual phone calls).

      1. This is such a great project, and that “some lawyer” is great for volunteering for it. Many wishes for success, I’ll promote it wherever opportunity arises.

  3. Moderator Note to reactionary naysayer who keeps trying to start a stoush regarding just how wrong feminists are about every single thing: keep on morphing those email addresses, and I'll keep on filtering them into the mod queue and then click them through to the trash. Unless you change to engaging substantively rather than with such tediously predictable stoushbait, in which case those kind of comments might make it through. Bless your heart.

  4. Today is the 25th anniversary of the massacre at Ecole polytechnique in Montreal where 14 were separated from their classmates and gunned down. For being women. For being women who dared to infringe on what the gunman, whose name I will not glorify here, felt he was entitled to as a man.

    1. Geneviève Bergeron, 21; Hélène Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Klueznick, 31; Maryse Laganière, 25; Maryse Leclair, 23; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 23; Michèle Richard, 21; Annie St-Arneault, 23; and Annie Turcotte, 21.

  5. I have just started a process of immense internal change. The time for fruitless self-reflection is over, and I am changing so rapidly that I feel overwhelmed sometimes. Yet at the same time I finally feel ready to confront myself in all aspects of life that need to change.

    People call me brave just because I ran away from home. Little do they know that it took three months for me to gain the courage to leave. But now I have the love and support of several family members, inspirational friends, and a wonderful girlfriend. And I have learned the importance of allowing myself the time and energy to take care of myself. I have everything I need to make these changes in my life.

    To help myself learn bravery, I must learn to push myself to venture into the unknown. I must keep my faith in those who love and support me, remembering always that they are there for me if I need guidance or assurance. Of course there is a chance of me only being hurt further, but there is also a chance of learning how to become a braver, more generous and loving person. It is important for me to not waste any opportunity to transform myself, even if the results may not be what I hope.

    I can’t afford to be perpetually afraid of learning lessons the hard way, even though I know it’s in my interest to learn things more smoothly and easily. Although of course this kind of mindset can easily turn self-destructive again, with all sorts of mindsets come their own risks in application, and there is a big difference between believing I am a horrible, disgusting person and believing that I always have the means to make myself a better person for others.

    I love my friends, I love my family, I love my partner, and I am trying to do what I can to learn how to love myself.

  6. TW:

    Ok, so I don’t want to start a argument about whether sex work should be legal or not. I just want to say there are two particular ideas which are not true and need to stop:

    1. “Men need sex workers, otherwise they’ll commit rape if they can’t get laid.” Not true. And if it were true, it wouldn’t justify using sex workers as sacrificial lambs required to sleep with men other women have turned down. Sex workers have the right to say no also – this idea that if you’re hideous or a horrible person you should just hire a sex worker ignores that. They are not obligated to sleep with you any more than anyone else is, just because you’re offering money into the bargain. And by the way, why doesn’t anyone talk about hiring some Finnick Odair lookalikes to service hideous ancient women? Why is it only men who are said to “need” sex and to “have to” commit rape if they can’t get it?

    2. “Disabled/deformed people can’t possibly get sex without sex workers.” See above about sex workers having the right to say no too, and also I think it’s ableist to say obviously nobody would want to sleep with someone who isn’t “normal” unless they’re offering money. There are people out there who think disabled and deformed people are sexy.

    1. As far as #1 goes, yes, this is a particularly weak argument and you pretty much sum up the reasons why. I also look at my own example, speaking as someone who never visited a sex worker and never had the urge to rape someone, so totally agree on that one.

      As far as #2 goes I also would agree that the statement “Disabled/deformed people can’t possibly get sex without sex workers.” is not particularly true either. However, saying that disabled people ‘can’t possibly get sex’ does is not the same as saying ‘severely disabled people, depending on their disability, tend to find it harder to go out and meet people than people who aren’t disabled.’ which I think people are saying.

      Honestly to me, neither of those arguments are compelling. My attitude is, if a woman or a man wants to accept money for sexual services, that is up to him/her. If two consenting adults want to exchange money and have sex, who are we to tell them it’s wrong? Ten years ago, when I lost my job for over a year, was my wife paying me for sex? I was giving her sex, she was giving me money. I disagree with your implicit definition of sex work as ‘women getting paid for doing things that they don’t want to do,’ because I think it’s wrong to automatically assume all sex workers are a)female and b)victims.

      1. I disagree with your implicit definition of sex work as ‘women getting paid for doing things that they don’t want to do,’ because I think it’s wrong to automatically assume all sex workers are a)female and b)victims.

        You’re being a little obtuse here, Steve. First of all, that is your inference, not the Anna’s implication. YOU have decided that’s what Ana means.

        Secondly, your and your wife’s private arrangement with regards to how you navigate who pays for what in your relationship is not at all the same thing sex work. Come ON.

        1. Secondly, your and your wife’s private arrangement with regards to how you navigate who pays for what in your relationship is not at all the same thing sex work. Come ON.

          Culturally it might be constructed differently, but I’m not sure the lines between sex work and relationships where one partner provides financial support are as bright as you think.

        2. Secondly, your and your wife’s private arrangement with regards to how you navigate who pays for what in your relationship is not at all the same thing sex work. Come ON.

          Culturally it might be constructed differently, but I’m not sure the lines between sex work and relationships where one partner provides financial support are as bright as you think.

        3. I’m speaking specifically to Steve, here.

          And as far as people who “trade” sex for a diamond ring, or a home, or whatever – it is NOT the same thing as being a sex worker. The latter involves risk and danger with many partners.

    2. Apologies that this is my first comment, but I am a long-time reader rather than a drive-by one-time-interest type.

      Anna, your sentence “There are people out there who think disabled and deformed people are sexy.” is profoundly uncomfortable for me. Maybe it’s unfortunate phrasing rather than what you actually meant, but still. My partner is (visibly, obviously) disabled; I am attracted to my partner. I’m right here, not “out there” as the kind of peculiarity your sentence sounds like. I am also not attracted to “disabled and deformed” people as a generalisation, because there is such a huge variety of people within that group, I am certainly not attracted to them all, just like I’m not attracted to all humans. Your phrasing also sounds like someone is attracted to or because of the disability itself, and while there are people like that, it’s icky and objectifying, and not a good thing.

      I think you probably didn’t mean any harm, but that sentence feels like it comes out of the deeply embedded picture our society has that desiring a (visibly or otherwise apparently) disabled person is a peculiar, niche thing. It isn’t; it’s simply desiring a human being. That picture, and the way people act when they assume it’s true, is deeply harmful to disabled people, and dehumanising. The picture is based on the assumption that disabled people aren’t desirable, and that therefore most “ordinary” people won’t desire any disabled person, and that it’s inherently strange and unusual to desire a disabled person. It’s not strange; I love my person! Certainly, it’s more unusual (maddeningly, and sadly) for nondisabled people to consider a disabled person as a partner, but that’s mostly because of society’s beliefs about disabled people, not because of anything actually about disabled people.

      It’d feel odd not to say that I’m disabled but nearly always mistaken for non-disabled, so the issues here aren’t really about me.

      We need a giraffe here. (That’s a request for a mod to follow along, not for any action.)

      [Thank you for sending a giraffe alert ~ mods]

      1. TW

        I apologize G. I did not mean it to sound that way, but as they say, intent is not magic. I meant people with disabilities and deformities are not inherently undesireable or unloveable.

        1. The barriers to disabled people accessing sexual gratification and/or physical intimacy aren’t their desirability or loveability, they’re systemic. This is especially true for disabled people in institutional care settings, which are typically very very unsupportive of their client’s sexualities if not actively hostile (intervening to stop masturbation etc).

          In New South Wales, sex workers aren’t just available to work with disabled people, they are often professionally trained to do so (see Touching Base, a not-for-profit which works with both the sex worker and disability communities), which includes being trained on systemic barriers. When you face massive systemic barriers, sometimes it takes someone who really knows that system to be able to meet your needs.

          On a separate note, can I just say that your use of the term “deformed” really rankles. Are you drawing this from anyone’s self identification? Because it certainly isn’t common terminology in the disabled community in Australia.

    1. I haven’t read that article you linked to in depth yet, though I will later when I have the time. Having said that, my understanding is that FIRE is one of those organizations that is actually reactionary, anti-progressive and supported mostly by neo-cons and libertarians who hide behind words like “freedom” and “liberty” and “plurality” in effort to obscure what they’re really about. On their website they talk about freedom of faith and religious expression, which sounds a lot like those Christians who run around whining about being “persecuted” for their beliefs to me.

      Though I’m inclined to be skeptical, I suppose I should suspend judgement until I’ve read the full article.

Comments are currently closed.